3 



E 650 
.E93 
Copy 1 



Hiving Confebetate ptinciples: 

A HERITAGE FOR ALL TIME 



AN ADDRESS 

DELIVERED BY 

LLOYD T. EVERETT 

Of Washington Camp No. 305, S. C. V. . 

At the Reception by the Camp to the Confederate Veterans of 

Washington, D. C. and vicinity, February 10, 1914; as 

revised and published in Number 40, Southern 

Historical Society Papers. 



COPYRIGHTED 




YEXID PUBLISHING COMPANY 

Box 250, Ballston, Virginia 

1917 



I 






6f« 






Living Confederate Principles : 

A Heritage for All Time. 



(An address delivered by Lloyd T. Everett, of Washington 
Camp, No. 305, S. C. V., at the reception by the Camp to the 
Confederate veterans of Washington, D. C, and vicinity, Feb- 
ruary 10, 1914. Revised.) 

Copyright igis, by Lloyd T. Everett. 



Mr. Commandant, Mr. Toastmastcr, Veterans and Comrades: 

We often hear it said that the glory of the Confederate 
soldier is imperishable and immortal ; that his valor and devo- 
tion to duty have won for him a name and a fame that shall 
never die. 

That is true. History shows us no equal to the splendid 
blend of physical and moral courage and long sustained fortitude 
of the half starved legions of Lee — certainly no 
"Duty IS the superior. And while, to use a homely phrase, 
rd in the every tub must stand upon its own bottom ; 

English while each man must win for himself, by his 

Language" own worth, his standing in the community, yet 

I prize as a priceless treasure the proud fact that 
I am the son of a Confederate soldier. Nor is this merely a 
matter of pride or of accidental honor to me. It is a very real 
incentive to look well to my own course and conduct in order 
that I may hand on untarnished the shining legacy that was be- 
queathed to me. 

"Duty is the sublimest word in the English language," is 
a maxim that has been widely credited to our peerless Lee, al- 
though incorrectly so according to respectable authority. ( i ) But, 
in any event, the sentiment is well worthy of General Lee, whose 



own life, public and private, was a superb illustration of the 
truth of the sublime epigram. And so, unswerving and unfal- 
tering devotion to duty is the glorious heritage which we Sons 
of Confederate Veterans, as sons of Confederate veterans, have 
acquired by reason of our lineage. 

But it is not of the courage, valor and endurance oi the 
Confederate soldier that I wish particularly to speak on this 
occasion. Those cardinal virtues of Dixie's defenders have been 
extolled a thousand times over by tongues more fluent than mine. 
Nor is it my purpose to vindicate the course of the peoples of 
the Southern States in asserting, and striving at all costs to 
maintain their independence under the exigencies of the par- 
ticular crisis of 1860-61. The world is already coming to know, 
as we have always known, that we need no such vindication — that 
our open record is its own vindication. 

No : it is another phase of what we may call the Confederate 
subject which I wish here to discuss ; a phase which, it seems to 
me, has been too little featured and, I fear, too little recognized, 
even by our own chroniclers and advocates. And yet, to my 
mind, upon the general recognition of it depends the true prog- 
ress of our own people ; nay, of free government, and hence of 
civilization itself. And that phase or aspect of the general sub- 
ject is this: The absolute soundness of the principles upon zvhich 
the Southern Confederacy icas bottomed; not merely the right- 
fulness of our stand for political independence under the peculiar 
circumstances of that time, but the everlasting verity of the 
political and institutional ideals underlying our action ; ideals 
vital and essential to all ages and climes as a goal toward which 
to press, if the world is to have true liberty with progress. 

For our Confederate war — our second war for independence. 
Stonewall Jackson called it (2) — was not a mere abortive revo- 
lution. We of the Southern States stood for great and funda- 
mental principles of government ; principles that meant, and that 
still mean much for the advancement of free institutions and of 
human happiness. 

And, just as the valor of the Confederate soldier and the 
untold heroism of the Confederate woman are immortal, so. with 






this larger view of the subject in mind, I take a theme for con- 
sideration here, and name it 

LIVING CONFEDERATE PRINCIPLES: a Heritage for 

all Time. 

The present is a time of peace and good will, of broad and 
tolerant sentiment, of generous breadth of view ; in a word, it is 
an era of good feeling between the various sec- 
An Era of tions of these United States. 

Good Feeling Just now there is rolling past us the semi- 

centenary of the War for Southern Independ- 
ence — the "Civil War" — the War between the States or the 
sections — the "War of the Rebellion" (whether by the North or 
the South, we need not here inquire) — call it what one will, 
everyone knows to what we here refer; that mighty clash of 
arms which to many of us is still most commonly referred to as, 
simply. The War. On every hand, to judge from the news- 
papers, are daily evidences of amity and cordiality between the 
Grey and the Blue ; of honor accorded brave men by brave men. 
And in July, 191 3, at Gettysburg, there was formally and finally 
buried — let us see, was it the twenty-seventh time, or the hundred 
and twenty-seventh time, since the war with Spain? — "the last 
vestige of sectionalism." And when I see and hear all this, I 
am glad. For then I may claim the right to a respectful hearing 
on my chosen theme, even though certain views I hold regarding 
The War, its causes, its conduct and its consequences, may dif- 
fer widely from those prevalent in the North, and even from 
those sometimes found in the South. 

Nor is this era of good feeling confined to America. Just 
now a son of Virginia and of a Confederate veteran sits in the 
White House, and a grandson of Virginia is the premier of the 
cabinet. From these two men of Southern stock now at the 
helm of the ship of state, has gone forth to all the world the 
message from this mighty nation. Peace on earth, good will to 
men ; not good will to men on earth from God in Heaven, as on 
that Christmas morn nineteen centuries ago, but peace on earth 




6 

from men to men — in truth, a clarion call from a strong- nation 
to the other nations of the earth, strong and weak alike; a call 
to these other nations to recognize as never before the brother- 
hood of man under the Fatherhood of God, as it is sometimes 
expressed. Under the Bryan Peace plan, if adopted, a long step 
forward will have been taken toward that happy era when "the> 
shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into 
pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, 
neither shall they learn war any more." (3) 

This means a turning from the forum of force to the rule 
of reason; a substitution of calm argument or impartial arbi- 
tration for the dread arbitrament of war. Yea, veterans and 
descendants of the Grey, it means a turning from the principles 
and practices of Lincoln and the North ; it means the coming 
triumph of the underlying principles of the Confederate States 
of America. 

I know that it is often said that the Southern States ap- 
pealed to the sword, in their controversy with the Northern 
States. I am here to challenge that allegation ; 
The to absolutely deny its truth. And I can prove 

pp" rPA^Rrp* "^^ contention from the record, and prove it to 
AMeal ^^^^ verge of demonstration. That record shows 

that the South did not choose the arbitrament of 
the sword ; it does show that she resorted to secession as the last 
hope of PEACE WITH HONOR. 

Ours is pre-eminently a race of peace and progress through 
the channels of self-government. The history of our ancestors 
for a thousand years and more will sustain the truth of this 
claim. True, it is a history of internecine war, often, but largely 
so because it is the life story of men, and of many genera- 
tions of men, who prized peace and order so highly that they 
were ever ready, if need be, to fight for it. Magna Charta, the 
Bin of Rights, the Petition of Right, the Revolution of 1688, the 
Act of Settlement — these are some of the monuments that mark 
the achievements of this orderly yet militant race. And these 
men laid the corner-stone of their structure in local self-govern- 
ment, as the truest safeguard for an oppressed minority, and 



'■^ar 



thus the surest bulwark for political liberty itself. Yes, local 
self-government, or home rule, is of the very warp and woof of 
our institutions. 

These salutary political principles, these racial characteris- 
tics, wer^ transplanted also to the kindly soil of the New World 
W'hen a greater Britain was planted here. 

It w^as in support of these principles that our Revolutionary 
sires protested against the unconstitutional stamp acts and similar 
taxation measures of England oppressive of the American mi- 
nority, in the efforts of the mother country to recuperate for the 
expenses of the French and Indian war. At first, they sought a 
peaceable remedy in the form of remonstrances, resolutions and 
the like. When they found that these availed them not, they 
then reluctantly accepted the gauge of battle flung in their faces 
by their haughty oppressors across the seas, pven after actual 
war was raging, these American patriots of British stock still 
indulged the fatuous dream of an unbroken British union, and 
sought to wage their fight under the British crown and, as 
nearly as possible, under the British flag. (4) As himself after- 
ward declared, George Washington, when he took command of 
the rebel forces under authority from the Continental Congress, 
■'abhorred the idea of independence." (5) 

But the logic of events soon brought forth the instrument 
officially entitled "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen 
united States of America." (6) (And, by the 
The Consent ^.^y Declaration is written v^^ith a big D, 
„ . united States with a little u and a capital S.) 

This immortal declaration laid down the fimda- 
mental doctrine that: 

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just 
powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any 
form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the 
right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new 
government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organ- 
izing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely 
to effect their safety and happiness." 

This, our first war for independence, was successful. About 



8 

the close of it these thirteen independent republics formed a 
closer union among- themselves, under what was known as the 
Articles of Confederation. This becoming unsatisfactory after 
a very few years, most of the constituent States seceded (which 
at the time was denounced by a few as unconstitutional and a 
breach of faith — 7), and these seceding States, eleven in num- 
ber, formed a new union under the federal constitution that was 
framed in 1787 and went into operation between these eleven 
States March 4, 1789. Afterward the two remaining States of 
the old union. North Carolina and Rhode Island, also acceded 
to the new instrument. 

As is well known, this new union was regarded with great 
jealousy, and scrutinized very closely by a number of the Conti- 
nental fathers, the immortal Patrick Henry, the firebrand of the 
Revolution, and George Mason, author of the great Bill of 
Rights of Virginia, among the number. As just seen, political 
independence from the despotic central power of Britain had 
been gained by the assertion and maintenance of the right to 
change oppressive governments. But this struggle was won by 
force of arms and at the cost of much bloodshed ; and the prin- 
ciple of the right to alter oppressive governments thus asserted 
in the Declaration of Independence might be construed, it was 
feared, to mean merely the right of revolution, and so the people 
of some of the United States, if thereafter oppressed by the 
central government to be created under the new constitution, 
might be left the right of separation, in self-defense, only by 
force of arms. And thus we would have progressed no whither 
in our supposed upward and onward march in the path of just 
and orderly self-government. Wherefore, several of the States — 
Virginia, New York and Rhode Island — in acceding to the new 
constitution, expressly reserved the right to peaceably withdraw 
or secede, should they thereafter find it necessary to their happi- 
ness to do so. (8) 

This was an important advance in self-government, and a 
further safeguard for the minority. The protection of the min- 
ority, be it remembered, was a primary object 
Minority in the framing of the federal constitution, as 

Protection stated at the time by James Madison, who is 

called the Father of the Constitution. 



In the Virginian convention that ratified the constitution of 
the United States, delegate James Madison declared: (9) 

"But, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that 
turbulence, violence and abuse of power by the majority tramp- 
ling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and 
commotions which, in republics, have more frequently than any 
other cause produced despotism. ... If we consider the 
peculiar situation of the United States, and what are the sources 
of that diversity of sentiment which pervades its [sic] inhabi- 
tants, we shall find great danger to fear that the same causes 
may terminate here in the same fatal effects which they prcn 
duced in those republics. This danger ought to be wisely 
guarded against." 

Madison advocated the adoption of the constitution as af- 
fording the needed protection to the minority. 

Remember that: the constitution of the United States was 
framed and adopted, the union of the States thereunder was 
formed, for the peaceable protection of the 
Coercion minority against the oppressions of the major- 

voted down j|.^,_ ^^^ mark this : it was proposed by some 

in the Consti= ' , , . ,, .-. .• 

tutional Con= embody ni the constitution a power to coerce 

vention States that might refuse to obey the laws of 

Congress. Madison (still the father of the con- 
stitution) said that this would mean war; and the proposal was 
voted down. (10) 

Well, time went on. Sectional differences and jealousies 
speedily developed between the Southern and the Northern 
States. Under Jeft'erson, a Southern President, the great trans- 
Mississippi territory of Louisiana was bought from Napoleon, in 
1803 ; and thereby the area of the United States was approxi- 
mately doubled. New England thought that this would 
strengthen the South at the expense of the North. Accordingly, 
New England threatened secession. (11) 

New England wat at this time a commercial or sra-faring 
country, and had as yet few manufactures. The Embargo law 
of Jefferson's second administration was unpopular in this sea- 
trading New England, and again loud mutterings of secessionist 



10 

purposes were heard up there. (12) The State of Louisiana 
was admitted in 181 2, despite the celebrated threat of Josiah 
Quincy, of Massachusetts, on the floor of Congress in 181 1, that 
such admission of a new Southern State from a part of the 
Louisiana purchase would constitute adequate cause for secession 
by some of the Northern States, "amicably if they can, violently 
if they must." (13) 

But conditions soon changed. The war of 1812 cut us oflF 
from Europe, whence we had theretofore obtained most of our 
manufactured goods ; and New England, her sea-trade interrupted 
by the war, with commendable energy and enterprise now began 
to manufacture. During this w^ar the famous Hartford Con- 
vention, of New England, met, with a large sized list toward 
secession. (14) After the war New England and the North 
generally began to find the union a good thing for them ; it fur- 
nished a free market — the Southern States — for buying the 
manufacturers' raw materials; it furnished a "protected" mar- 
ket — still largely the Southern States — for selling the manu- 
factured goods. 

But New England and the rest of the North were still 
painfully jealous of new Southern and Western or South- 
western States. They opposed the admission of 
A Fire=beII Missouri. 1819, and now first raised seriously 

in the Night the question of Negro slavery as a sectional 
issue. Thomas Jefiferson was himself, like many 
other Southerners, in favor of the abolition of slavery ; a peace- 
able abolition. But he could see further into the future than 
could most men. So now, when this Missouri-slavery issue was 
raised by New England and the North, for the purpose of keep- 
ing the new lands of the West for themselves as against the 
South, the aged Jefferson wrote that it roused him as a fire-bell 
in the night, and portended a disastrous sectional struggle. (15) 

But to return to the tariff. The tariff question, as a serious 
sectional issue, first came to a head about 1830. Having once 
gotten hold of the nursing bottle of "protection," so called, in 
1816 and 1820, New England and the North cried ever for more. 
The tariff of 1820 was followed by that of 1824, and that in 



11 

turn by the "tariff of abominations" in 1828. These were sec- 
tional measures, and the South felt herself being- oppressed and 
impoverished by the combined Northern and North-western ma- 
jority. The tariff act of 1832 was of the same stripe as its 
predecessors. Out of this situation came the Nullification crisis 
of 1830-33. 

Early in 1830 occurred the memorable debate in the Senate 
of the United States between Robert Y. Hayne, of South Caro- 
lina, and Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts. Just three years 
later, early in 1833, a similar debate took place between the same 
Mr. Webster on one side and, on the other side, Hayne's suc- 
cessor in the Senate, the immortal John C. Calhoun. Hayne and 
Calhoun were the champions of the South in the pending sec- 
tional controversy ; Webster, of the North. In these debates 
Webster is said to have "shotted every gun" that was fired for 
the North in the great War of thirty years later. (16) If this 
be so, careful attention is due to this Titans' war, this battle of 
the forensic giants, and to the great constitutional and insti- 
tutional arguments then advanced. 

The immediate issue was the tariff. The Southern States, 
and especially South Carolina, contended that the existing tariff 
laws were devised for protecting Northern manufacturers, and 
so imposed a sectional burden upon the agricultural South ; they 
contended, further, that there was no warrant for anything more 
than a revenue tariff; that a tariff for "protection," as it is 
called, was utterly unconstitutional. 

Whether the South was correct on these two points ; viz : the 
injurious effects of a "protective" tariff at that time, upon the 
South, and the unconstitutionality of such a tariff — with these 
two questions we are not here concerned. But from this start- 
ing point the debates ranged out and covered other two questions 
which do here concern us. And these are: first, How are dis- 
puted questions of constitutionality, arising between States, or 
groups of States, in the union, to be determined?; second. The 
nature of the union, whether a union of States as States, or of 
the American people in one aggregate mass. To take these up 
briefly, in inverse order to that just given : 



12 

Calhoun introduced in the Senate a series of resolutions, 
tiu'ee in number, which are well worth the careful study of 
every student of republican institutions, every lover of human 
freedom. These resolutions recited (17) the strictly federal 
character, under the constitution of 1787-89, of the union of 
American States ; with the resultant right, to the States, "of 
judging-, in the last resort, as to the extent of the powers dele- 
gated" to the central government and, consequently, of those re- 
served to the several States, and that action by the central gov- 
ernment based upon the contrary assumption must inevitably 
tend to undue consolidation and to "the loss of liberty itself." 

Webster vehemently attacked these resolutions. His argu- 
ment may be thus epitomized, largely in his own words: (18) 
How can any man get over the words of the 
««We the preamble to the constitution itself, "We the 

People'' people of the United States ... do ordain and 

establish this constitution"?; that these words 
forbid the turning of the instrument into a mere compact be- 
tween sovereign States ; that, in framing and putting into opera- 
tion the constitution of the United States, "a change had been 
made from a confederacy of States to a different system, ... a 
constitution for a national government" ; that "accession, as a 
word applied to political associations, implies coming into a 
league treaty or confederacy, by one hitherto a stranger to it" ; 
that, "in establishing the present government," (i. e.. the govern- 
ment of the United States as it stood in Webster's time) the 
"people of the United States ... do not say that they accede to 
a league, but they declare that they ordain and establish a consti- 
tution, . . . some of them employing the . . . words 'as- 
sented to' and 'adopted/ but all of them 'ratifying' " ; that "the 
constitution of the United States is not a league, confederacy or 
compact between the people of the several States in their sover- 
eign capacities" : that "THE NATURAL CONVERSE OF AC- 
CESSION IS SECESSION." 

Note the several test words here: confederacy, constitution, 
national, compact and ACCEDE. 

As to every one of them Webster was wrong, as rnay be 



13 

shown from the debates and otificial documents accompanying and 
preceding the framing and adoption of the federal constitution. 
We have not the time to examine fully into all these test words 
here ; for a fairly full compilation or tabulation of the data bear- 
ing on them, see the subjoined note. (19) To one or two ot 
these words let us devote a few sentences. 

First, then, as to the phrase, "We the people of the United 
States." The preamble to the federal constitution does use this 
expression. But Article VII of the instrument itself provides that 
"The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be suf- 
ficient for the establishment of this constitution BETWEEN 
THE STATES so ratifying the same." Mark you these most 
significant words, between the States. It is not provided that 
the ratification of this constitution by a prescribed majority of 
the whole people of the then existing United States under the 
Articles of Confederation shall establish it over the whole people 
of all those United States (a provision that would have been an 
utter nullity, for stubborn historical reasons), but that its rati- 
fication by a certain number of the States shall establish it be- 
tween — not over, but BETWEEN those particular States, and 
none others, unless and until such others shall also ratify, each 
for itself. 

Bearing in mind this x\rticle VII of the federal constitution, 
the preamble becomes plain. A cardinal canon of construction 
is, that if possible all the parts of a written instrument shall be 
so construed as to be harmonious with each other. The "people 
of the United States," then, here means the people (or, peoples) 
of those several distinct States which may elect to establish the 
proposed constitution between themselves. And indeed, this con- 
stitution of 1787, and the union under it, first went into efifect be- 
tween eleven of the States, only, as we have remarked above ; 
North Carolma and Rhode Island remaining separate and inde- 
pendent republics imtil, after President Washington's inaugura- 
tion, they chose, each for itself, to come into the new union or 
confederacy. 

So we see that Mr. Webster's centralist construction of the 
word or phrase, "the people." as used in the constitution, falls 
to the eround. 



14 

But again, Webster denies that the States acceded to the 
constitution; and mark well his daring- and all-important admis- 
sion, that "the natural converse of accession is secession." 

Now, it so happens that this word accede, or its derivative 
accession, which he thus spurns, is found, in the very sense 
which he denies to it, over and over again in the debates of those 
who framed and adopted the constitution, and at least once in 
the course of the official documents pertaining to its adoption ; 
over and over again, I say, or some forty times, by actual count, 
either certainly or probably in this sense, and more than twenty 
times unquestionably so. To give but three instances here : 

James Madison said, in the Virginian convention of 1788 
that debated and, by a close majority, ratified the system for 
\^irginia: (20) "Suppose eight States only should ratify, and 
Virginia should propose certain alterations as the previous con- 
dition of her accession." In the North Carolina State conven- 
tion Governor Johnston said: (21) "We are not to form a 'Con- 
stitution, but to say whether we [i. e., the people of North Caro- 
lina] shall adopt a constitution to which ten States have already 
acceded." And the ratifying- convention of New York (of 
which Alexander Hamilton was a member) prepared by unani- 
mous order a circular letter containing this language: (22) 
"Our attachment to our sister States, and the confidence we re- 
pose in them can not be more forcibly demonstrated than by 
acceding to a government 'which many of us think very im- 
perfect." 

Webster was right ; "secession is the converse of accession." 
Moreover, as we have seen above, (23) at least three States, Vir- 
ginia, Rhode Island and New York, in their formal acts of rati- 
fication of the federal constitution, expressly and explicitly re- 
served this right of secession or peaceable withdrawal ; a fact 
noiv well known and noiv generally acknowledged, by South and 
North alike. 

But, another question asked in those debates of the early 
'thirties was, as stated above, Hoiv shall disputed questions of 
constitutional rights and poivers be decided? By the federal 
Supreme Court, said Webster, so as to bind even sovereign 
States, and in all cases. 



15 

•"No," said i)Outh Carolina, in substance, speaking througli 
Hayne and Callioun ; "the constitution of the United States em- 
powers the federal Supreme Court to decide only 'all cases in 
laz^' and equity arising under this constitution, the laws of the 
United States, and treaties made . . . under their authority.' " 
That is the language of the constitution: "all cases in law and 
equity." And questions of sovereignty, argued South Carolina, 
come not within the scope of cases in law and equity, which are 
limited, by the well known common-law use of the term, to an 
altogether different class of cases. The historical correctness 
of this contention of South Carolina's is supported by James 
Madison in his journal of the constitutional convention. Madi- 
son, the reporter, says of himself, the delegate: (24) 

"James Madison doubted whether it was not going too far 
to extend the jurisdiction of the federal supreme court generally 
to cases arising under the constitution, and 
♦♦All Cases in whether it ought not to be limited to cases of 
P . ,, a judiciary nature." (The contention of Hayne 

and Calhoun, exactly.) "The right of expound- 
ing the constitution in cases not of this nature ought not to be 
given to that department. 

"The [pending] motion of Dr. Johnson was agreed to nem. 
con., it being generally supposed that the jurisdiction given was 
constructively limited to cases of a judiciary nature." As if to 
clinch the matter beyond a peradventure, the words "in law and 
equity" were afterward inserted into the jurisdiction clause here 
discussed. 

(Just a word here as to the man here quoted, as authority, 
James Madison of Virginia, "father of the constitution." From 
the standpoint of a constitutional constructionist, Madison's ca- 
reer was somewhat that of a pendulum. Rather centralistic at 
the time of the general convention of 1787 that framed the con- 
stitution and submitted it to the States for ratification or re- 
jection — certainly moderately so, as disclosed by his own utter- 
ances, from time to time, in the debates of that convention, a 
very few years later he became Jefferson's own right-hand man 
in opposing the radically centralistic trend of the Adams ad- 



16 

ministration; in his old age, and at the time of the Nullification 
crisis which we are now discussing, he seems to have reverted 
toward his earlier position. As a centralist, then, at the time he 
took part in and reported the debates of the general constitu- 
tional convention of 1787, whatever Madison noted down of a 
contrary tendency is deserving of special attention and weight.) 

But if not the federal supreme court, then what tribunal, in- 
quired Webster and the North, is to decide these disputed ques- 
tions of sovereignty and of constitutional powers? The answer 
was ready to hand: Not to the federal supreme court, itself but 
a component part of the created central government, where three 
men (a majority of a quorum of the court), and they political 
appointees, may have the deciding voice, must a sovereign 
creator State submit questions affecting her sovereign powers. 
She herself will decide it pending an appeal, in the true spirit of 
Magna Charta, to the judgment of her peers, her sister sovereign 
creator States in general convention assembled. This contention 
had had the support of Thomas Jefferson in 1821, as quoted by 
Hayne: (35) "It is a fatal heresy to suppose that either our 
State governments are superior to the federal, or the federal to 
the State ; neither is authorized literally to decide what belongs 
to itself, or its co-partner in government, in differences between 
their different sets of public servants ; the appeal is to neither, 
but to their employers peaceably assembled by their representa- 
tives in convention." More than twenty years before this utter- 
ance Jefferson had embodied this same principle in his draft of 
the famous Kentucky Resolutions. (26) Again, Jefferson wrote, 
(27) "This peaceable and legitimate resource, a general con- 
vention of the States, to which we are in the habit of implicit 
obedience, sitpersediii!^ all appeal to force, and being always 
within our reach, shows a precious principle of self-preservation 
in our composition ..." 

Mark this: Jeft'erson says that in this plan of a general con- 
vention of the States to decide such mooted questions of consti- 
tutional construction and governmental powers, is found a peace- 
able settlement of vexing political and sectional problems. This 
was precisely Carolina's plea in 1836-33. 



17 

Right or wrong, thundered President Jackson, these federal 
laws must be obeyed unless and until repealed by the same 
power (Congress) that enacted them, or unless and until de- 
clared unconstitutional by the federal supreme court ; and if not 
voluntarily obeyed, then obedience shall be enforced by the frat- 
ricidal sword. To like effect argued Webster. You have the 
right, said he, to resist laws deemed oppressive, if you so please — • 
but it is the right of revolution, no more ; justifiable only if suc- 
cessful, and if not successful, subject to the dread penalties of 
high treason. 

Ours is a constitutional remedy, Hayne replied, and a peace- 
able one. (a) The right of revolution exists independently of 
the constitution. That instrument expressly de- 
Power versus clares that all powers not delegated to the central 
Liberty government remains to the several States, or the 

people ; that is, to the people of those several 
States. This power of deciding the constitutionality or the un- 
constitutionality of laws of Congress, being not given in the 
constitution either to Congress or to the federal supreme court* 
remains to the several States. Ours is a peaceable remedy — -un- 
less you of the North force on us the issue of war. And only 
if honor with peace within the union be found no longer possible, 
then will we exercise that other peaceable remedy of secession 
or withdrawal from the partnership of States in order that, like 
Abraham and Lot of old, we may dwell apart in peace, rather 
than remain together in dissension. And if you, like George III, 
still pursue us with hostile intent and the sword be drawn, then 
upon you of the North, not upon n^. nm-t fic awful responsi- 
bility rest. 

For answer to this plea of peace by South Carolina, Jackson, 
Webster and the North passed the Force Bill, as it was called, 
of 1833 ; a bill providing for the enforcement of the tariff laws, 
if need be, by force of arms. But at the same time, in view of 
Soutli Carolina's determined front, and signs of growing supoort 
for her from other Southern States, Jackson and Congress 
passed, also, the Clay Compromise bill scaling down the tariflF 
to meet Carolina's demands. 



18 

So ended the matter for the time. The sword was threat- 
ened but not drawn, and South Carolina's peaceable remedy for 
an oppressed sectional minority prevailed. And mark this: 
State nullification or State veto, as here preached by Hayne and 
Calhoun and practiced by their native State, was a qualified 
nullification only, a fact too often entirely overlooked; an inter- 
position of the State's sovereignty pending an appeal to a three- 
fourths decision of the confederated States in general conven- 
tion. It was, in effect, a federal referendum, (b) It was 
strictly conservative of true constitutional principles. For, let 
us repeat, a prime object of the federal constitution was the 
protection of the rigJits of the minority. 

This struggle of the early 'thirties of the nineteenth cen- 
tury was, as Calhoun averred at the time, (28) a contest between 
power, or the North, and liberty, or the South. Calhoun drew 
a close parallel between that contest and that other of 1776, with 
Northern unjust taxation of the South in 1833- bearing a marked 
analogy to the British unjust taxation of the American colonies 
in 1776. 

That both of these contentions of South Carolina (i. e.. 
qualified nullification, with secession in reserve) were sound, 
historically and constitutionally sound, we have 
The Great j^gj- geg^. That tlie contrary contention of Web- 

on ouner ^^^^ ^^^^^ unsound, unconstitutional and unhis- 

the Constitu= . ^ . 

llQn. torical, must necessarily follow. Daniel Web- 

ster has been called the "Expounder of the 
Constitution." (29) I respectfully submit that great "Con- 
founder of the Constitution" would be a more fitting title. His 
admirer and biographer, and a successor to him in the federal 
Senate from Massachusetts, Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge, says of 
Webster's argument here, ('30) "The weak places in his armor 
were historical in their nature." Of Webster on a somewhat 
similar occasion the same writer says, (31) "But the speech is 
strongly partisan and exhibits the disposition of an advocate to 
fit the constitution to his particular case." Likewise, Webster's 
apologist, von Hoist, discussing this very debate with Calhoun, 
sadly confesses (32) that. "To his and his country's harm, the 



19 

advocate in him always spoke loudly in die reasoning of the 
statesman." 

Yes ; Daniel Webster was a great lawyer, an able advocate, 
a magnificent orator. But as a constitutional student he was su- 
perficial. The close of his speech known as "Webster's reply to 
Hayne" is a burst of splendid oratory, and is known and quoted 
far and wide. Only less eloquent, far more sound, is the little 
known peroration to Hayne's rejoinder, which should be called 
"Hayne's reply to Webster." Mr. Webster said: (33) 

"While the union lasts we have high, exciting, gratifying 
prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Be- 
yond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that, in 
my day at least, that curtain may not rise. God grant that on 
my vision never may be opened what lies behind. When my 
eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in 
heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored 
fragments of a once glorious union ; on States dissevered, dis- 
cordant, belligerent ; on a land rent with civil feud, or drenched, 
it may be, in fraternal blood ! Let their last feeble and lingering 
glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now 
known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, 
its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a 
A Means stripe erased or polluted, not a single star ob- 

Inseparable scured — bearing for its motto no such miserable 

from the End interrogatory as. What is all this worth? nor 
Sought? those other words of delusion and folly. Liberty 

f.rst, and union after-wards; but everywhere, spread all over in 
characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they 
float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the 
whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American 
heart — Liberty and union, now and forever, one and insepar- 
able !" 

Grand, glorious — rhetorically; but it is not logic — nor yet 
history. According to Webster, the perpetuity of the then exist- 
ing American union was essential to the continued enjoyment of 
liberty. But the Declaration of Independence, mindful of the 
rise and fall of nations and the ever recurring changes in gov- 



ernments, tells us that all g-overnments are but means to an end, 
and that end the securing of life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness; that here, as in any other case, when a particular 
means fails to effect the end in vie-w, it should be discarded for 
some other means. Forgetful, too, was Webster of Washing- 
ton's language in his revered Farewell Address, wherein he de- 
nominates the union under the constitution of 1787-9 an "experi- 
ment," and warns against "geographical discriminations" as 
"causes which may disturb our union." To like effect to this 
last, as seen above, spoke Jefferson on "the Missouri question" ; 
but these solemn admonitions, of Washington and of Jefferson, 
Webster and, after him, Lincoln, heeded not. 

Thus Mr. Webster in 1833, for union at any cost, when 
those whom he opposed themselves opposed the tariff laws which, 
by means of "geographical discriminations," favored his own 
New England and the North, To far different effect had he 
spoken some seventeen years before when, a member of the 
House of Representatives from New Hampshire, he voiced New 
England's fierce opposition to the then raging war with old 
England and to the pending enlistment bill for carrying on that 
war: (34) "I use not the tone of intimidation or menace," 
thundered young' Representative Webster, "but I forewarn you 
of consequences. ... I beseech you, by the best hopes of 
your country's prosperity — by your regard for the preservation 
of her government and her union — that you abandon }Our sys- 
tem of restrictions — that you abandon it at once and abandon it 
forever." 

But to return to the Great Debate of 1830. Said Gen. 
Hayne in reply to Webster's "reply": (35) 

"The gentleman has made an eloquent appeal to our hearts 
in favor of union. Sir, I cordially respond to that appeal. I 
will yield to no gentleman here in sincere at- 
Freedom tachment to the union ; but it is a union founded 

before Union on the constitution, and not such a union as 
that gentleman would give us. that is dear to my 
heart. If this is to become one great 'consolidated government,' 
swallowing up the rights of the States, and the liberties of the 



21 

citizen, 'riding- over the plundered ploughmen and beggared yeo- 
manry,' the union will not be worth preserving. Sir, it is be- 
cause South CaroHna loves the union, and would preserve it for- 
ever, that she is opposing now, while there is hope, those usur- 
pations of the federal government which, once established, will, 
sooner or later, tear this union into fragments. 

"The gentleman is for marching under a banner, studded 
all over with stars, and bearing the inscription. Liberty and 
Union. I had thought, sir, the gentleman would have borne a 
standard, displaying in its ample folds a brilliant sun, extending 
its golden rays from the center to the extremities, in the bright- 
ness of whose beams the 'little stars hide their diminished heads.' 
Ours, sir, is the banner of the constitution ; the twenty- four stars 
are there, in all their undiminished lustre ; on it is inscribed. 
Liberty — the constitution — union. We offer up our fervent 
prayers to the Father of all Mercies that it may continue to 
wave, for ages yet to come, over a free, a happy, and a united 
people." 

Hayne has been criticised as having violated a cardinal rule 
of oratory and having attempted to equal Webster's peroration 
in his own. (36) But another view may be urged. The ablest 
generals — such as Lee, Jackson and Napoleon — are often those 
who, on occasions, transgress fundamental canons of strategy; 
success as a result being their only justification. Hayne, at once 
orator, patriot and logician, both felt the power of Webster's 
closing plea and its glowing imagery as it would appeal to men, 
and perceived its basic fallacy as applied. He proceeded, boldly 
and deliberately, to borrow his great antagonist's own figure of 
speech and turn it against him. In the brief space of the closing 
four sentences of the peroration just quoted, Hayne reproduces 
in outline the picture drawn so fully and so masterfully by Web- 
ster, dissects it, suggests a more fitting one to accord with his 
opponent's expressed principles, appropriates the original as 
properly illustrating his own position, and ends with the "fer- 
vent" and pertinent invocation that it may long be suflfered to 
remain the true emblem of a people free and happy as well as 
united. 



22 

Hayne's peroration is not so elaborate or ornate as Web- 
ster's; nor was it meant to be. But it is perfect in itself. The 
keen, logical criticism, blended with the quiet, delicate sarcasm 
conveyed in the reference to the "brilliant sun" and the "little 
stars," is exquisite; the true application of Webster's stellar 
picture is simple and effective. After the "fire, the wind, and 
the earthquake" of Webster's mighty finish it comes — as a still 
small voice. 

And so the South triumphed with and through this remedy 
of peaceable protection for a sectional minority. The North, 
thus baffled, next resorted to a wily flank move. 

The next great sectional crisis (after the preliminary and 
premonitory one of 1850) came nearly a third of a century 
later. In the crisis just discussed, involving the 
A Wily Nullification clash of 1830-33, the tariff was the 

Flank Move bone Of contention. In this second crisis, Negro 
slavery in the territories was the occasion, not 
the cause as is imagined by many who should know better. 

What was the actual source of this "free-soil" or "anti- 
slavery" crusade of the North? An aroused moral sense, say 
some. Fanaticism, say others. Partly each of these, but not 
exclusively or chiefly either or both, say I. 

Mark well this fact : In the debates in Congress on the 
tariff dispute of 1833. John Quincy Adams, ex-President of the 
United States and then a member of the House of Representa- 
tives, uttered this significant remark from the floor of the 
House: (;^y) "But protection might be extended in different 
forms to diflferent interests. ... In the Southern and South- 
western portion of the union, there exists a certain interest [by 
which Adams meant Negro slavery] which enjoys under the 
constitution and the laws of the United States an especial pro- 
tection, peculiar to itself" (i. e., return of fugitive slaves es- 
caping from one State into another). He referred to the slaves 
in the Southern States as "machinery," and added, "If they [the 
Southern States] must withdraw protection from the free white 
labor of the North [the "protection" of a high tariff, Adams 
meant], then it ought to be withdrawn from the machinery of 
the South." 



23 

Ah — here we have the milk in the cocoanut; or perhaps it 
would be appropriate to say, the African in the fuel heap. In 
the framing of the federal constitution, the North and the 
South — rather, New England and the far Southern States — ar- 
ranged a quid pro quo, (38) by which the shipping interests of 
New England obtained control, and permanent control, of com- 
mercial regulations by a mere majority vote, instead of a two- 
thirds vote, in the Congress, and the South (together with the 
slave-importing shippers of this same New England) defeated 
the possibility of prohibition of the continued importation of Ne- 
groes, temporarily, or for some nineteen years. And now, her 
darling of sectional customs "protection" in danger from South 
Carolina's firm stand, New England, through John Quincy 
Adams as her spokesman, gave warning, in 1833, that tariff 
"protection," although not guaranteed by the constitution, and 
slavery protection, which was expressly guaranteed by that in- 
strument, must be held as twin special interests, to stand or fall 
together. 

In this light, then, these remarks of Adams, of Massachu- 
setts, should be carefully marked and constantly borne in mind 
in connection with the subsequent growth and course of anti- 
Southern agitation, under the guise of an anti-slavery crusade, 
from the time — this time of South Carolina's Nullification stand 
and the resultant tariff reduction of 1833 — that a definite check 
was placed upon high tariff. North-favoring legislation. And 
this is the same Mr. Adams who shortly thereafter began to 
make his declining years renowned by pouring into the House 
of Representatives at Washington his broadsides of "anti- 
slavery" or anti-Southern petitions. 

Finally, a new party was formed, with its primary object, 
as professed, the exclusion of the South iwith her constitution- 
guaranteed property from the common territories that had been 
acquired by the common blood and the common treasure of the 
South and the North. And, significantly, early in its history, 
or as soon (i860) as it had acquired material growth and sub- 
stantial prestige, (39) this new political party, already thus 
avowedly sectional in its principles, made a sectional "protective" 



24 

tariff one of its demands. And when it had elected a President 
(by a sectional and a minority popular vote, be it remembered) 
and so caused a disruption of the union of States, "protection" 
was a primary means employed to support the war that followed 
— a war of aggression and conquest waged by this party to se- 
cure both its own continued supremacy and the new consolidated 
and un-American union of force in place of the pristine con- 
federated union of choice which itself had done so much to 
destroy; a war in which Negro emancipation in parts of the 
Southern States was incidentally proclaimed as a military meas- 
ure, the thirteenth amendment coming later to extend and vali- 
date this unconstitutional proceeding. "Un-American union of 
force," I said ; we must remember that widespread opposition to 
the war of conquest against the South manifested itself in the 
North, and that the myriads of immigrants from centralist, 
"blood-and-iron" Germany had much to do with turning the 
scale in the North in support of Lincoln's and Seward's war. (c) 
In these aliens there had arisen "a new king which knew not 
Joseph," who had no inconvenient recollections of '76 to hold 
him in check. (Note: The foregoing was originally written be- 
fore the outbreak of the European war of 1914, much of the re- 
sponsibility for which must be laid to the charge of this same 
"blood-and-iron" nation.) 

This so-called free-soil movement were more accurately 
styled a white-soil movement. For hand in hand with the ef- 
forts to keep Negro slaves out of the new States and territories 
of the North and the West, went drastic anti-free-Negro laws 
in those regions as well as in the older Northern States. (These 
laws are to be found discussed most illuminatingly in Ewing's 
Legal and Historical Status of the Dred Scott Decision, chapter 
iv. See, also, Northern Rebellion and Southern Secession, by 
the same author, page 113.) The Negro, slave or free, was not 
wanted in the North and West. Long since had Jefferson, the 
honest abolitionist, pointed out that, (40) "The passage of slaves 
from one State to another would not make a slave of a single 
human being who would not be so without it. So their diffusion 
over a greater surface would make them individually happier 



25 

and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment of their eman 
cipation by dividing the burden on a greater number of coad- 
jutors." This warning, like those other warnings of Jefiferson 
and Washington above mentioned, of course went unheeded b) 
the Negro-exclusionists of the North and North-west. 

Nullification, or State veto subject to federal referendum, 
was practicable in 1833 ; practicable and successful. In 1860-61 
it was not practicable, because a State could not 
Abraham and exercise her veto power out in the common ter- 
Lot Again ritories, where the sectional, Northern party 

that had just been elected to power threatened 
anti-Southern legislation. Hence, when peace with honor was 
no longer possible within the union of States, the Southern 
States turned to the only possible peaceable alternative, secession, 
or complete withdrawal from that inter-State compact of gov- 
ernment already so flagrantly violated, in act and in promise of 
further acts to come, by their Northern sisters. 

That the voice and efforts, the counsels and measures of the 
Southland were still for peace, the record abundantly proves. 

Sturdy little South Carolina, faithful to the spirit of hei 
departed Hayne and Calhoun, was the first State to withdraw. 
On her invitation, delegates from five other of the "cotton 
States" that followed her in withdrawing, and later those from 
a sixth, Texas, met her own delegates in a Congress at Mont- 
gomery, Alabama. February 4, 1861. By this Congress was 
framed the provisional constitution of the Confederate States of 
America. Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, was chosen pro- 
visional President of the new union. 

On February 15, 1861, before the arrival of Mr. Davis at 
Montgomery to take the oath of ofiice, the Congress passed a 
resolution providing, (41) "that a commission of three persons 
be appointed by the President-elect as early as may be con- 
venient after his inauguration, and sent to the government of the 
United States, for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations 
between that government and the Confederate States of America, 
and for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between 
the two governments, upon principles of right, justice, equity and 
good faith." 



26 

Truly, as Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, one of the delegates to 
this Montgomery Congress, says in his history of the United 
States, (42) these "were not such men as revolutions or civil 
commotions usually bring to the surface. . . . Their object 
was not to tear down, so much as it was to build up with the 
greater security and permanency." And we may add that they 
meant to build up, if so permitted, peaceably. 

In this spirit of amity and justice, the first act of the Louisi- 
ana State convention, after passing the ordinance of secession, 
was to adopt, unanimously, a resolution recognizing the right to 
free navigation of the Mississippi river (which flows down from 
the Northern States of the great inland basin and empties into 
the sea within the confines of Louisiana), and further recogniz- 
ing the right of egress and ingress at that river's mouth and 
looking to the guaranteeing of these rights. (43) 

President Davis' inaugural address, delivered February 18, 
1 86 1, breathed the same spirit of friendship toward our brothers 
of the North. He said, in part: (44) 

"Our present political position has been achieved in a man- 
ner unprecedented in the history of nations. It illustrates the 
American idea that governments rest on the con- 

®"'' sent of the governed, and that it is the right of 

Pi*6siddif ^ 

I . the people to alter or abolish them at will when- 

ever they become destructive of the ends for 
which they were established. The declared purpose of the com- 
pact of the union from which we have withdrawn was to "estab- 
lish justice, insure domestic tranquility, (d) provide for the 
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the 
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ;' and when, in 
the judgment of the sovereign States composing this Confedera- 
tion, it has been perverted from the purposes for which it was 
ordained, and ceased to answer the ends for which it was estab- 
lished, a peaceful appeal to the ballot box declared that, so far 
as they are concerned, the government created by that compact 
should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted the right 
which the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, defined 
to be 'inalienable.' . . . 



27 

"Thus the sovereign States here represented have proceeded 
to form this Confederacy; and it is by abuse of language that 
their act has been denominated a revolution. They formed a 
new alliance, but within each State its government has remained ; 
so that the rights of person and property have not been dis- 
turbed. The agent through which they communicated with 
foreign nations is changed, but this does not necessarily inter- 
rupt their international relations. Sustained by the conscious- 
ness that the transition from the former union to the present 
Confederacy has not proceeded from a disregard on our part of 
just obligations, or any failure to perform every constitutional 
duty, moved by no interest or passion to invade the rights of 
others, anxious to cultivate peace and commence with all nations, 
if we may not hope to avoid war, we may at least expect that 
posterity will acquit us of having needlessly engaged in it. . . . 

"An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export 
of commodities required in every manufacturing country, our 
true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities 
will permit. . . . If a just perception of mutual interest shall 
permit us peaceably to pursue our separate political career, my 
most earnest desire will have been fulfilled. But if this be de- 
nied to us, and the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be 
assailed, it will but remain for us with firm resolve to appeal to 
arms and invoke the blessing of Providence on a just cause." 

Nor did our President content himself with mere zvords of 

peace. He promptly acted on the resolution of Congress above 

cited, and appointed three commissioners from 

Southern q^j. government to the government of the 

„ '^^ ^ United States. "These commissioners," says 

Branches ^ . / s .. , , , • , i 

Mr. Stephens, (45) were clothed with plenary 

powers to open negotiations for the settlement of all matters of 
joint property, forts, arsenals, arms or property of any other kind 
within the limits of the Confederate States, and all joint liabili- 
ties with their former associates, upon principles of right, jus- 
tice, equity and good faith." 

Let me ask. Could anything have been fairer? 

These commissioners promptly proceeded on their way. A 



2H 

few clays after the inauguration of Mr. Lincoln at Washington 
they formally notified his Secretary of State, Mr. Seward, that 
"the President, Congress and people of the Confederate States 
earnestly desire a peaceful solution" of pending questions be- 
tween the two governments. The full history of these negotia- 
tions makes mighty interesting reading. But it is too long a 
story to be rehearsed in detail here. (46) Suffice it to say that 
it was through no fault of these commissioners, or of the people 
and government they represented, that their mission of peace and 
good will to their late allies of the North came to nought. 

South Carolina, shortly after her secession in December, 
i860, had taken like steps looking to peace, by sending a com- 
mission to negotiate with Buchanan's administration relative to 
former United States property within her limits. (47) 

Yet another effort for peace was made from a Southern 
official quarter in those portentous, ominous months following 
the sectional victory at the polls in November, i860. The pro- 
visional Confederate constitution mentioned above was framed 
and adopted by what were called the seven Cotton States. The 
border Southern States were yet within the old union, hoping 
against hope for continued union, peace and justice. Among 
these border States was Virginia, the oldest, the most powerful 
of them all. By unanimous vote of her Legislature all the States 
of the union were invited to send commissioners to a conference, 
to devise some plan for preserving harmony and constitutional 
union. (48) 

This conference met in Washington, February 4, 1861, the 
very day on which the Congress of the seceded Cotton States 
assembled in Montgomery. It adjourned February 27. Signifi- 
cantly enough, in view of our present argument, this conference 
at Washington was called the Peace Congress. The demands or 
suggestions of the South in this Peace Congress were only that 
constitutional obligations should be observed by all parties ; nay, 
that certain concessions to the North would be agreed to, by 
means of constitutional amendment, if only the constitution, as 
thus amended, might be obeyed. This did not suit the commis- 
sioners from the Northern States, as was bluntly stated by one 



29 

of them, then and there, Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, who was 
slated for a portfolio in Lincoln's cabinet, and therefore spoke 
at least quasi et cathedra. So the Peace Congress proved of 
no avail, (e) 

We find a similar situation in the Congress of the United 
States at its regular session that winter. Of the condition there 
Mr. Pollard says, in his book. The Lost Cause, (49) "It is re- 
markable that of all the compromises proposed in this Congress 
for preserving the peace of the country, none came from North- 
ern men ; they came from the South and were defeated by the 
North." 

Well might the Southern leaders have adopted for their own 
the language of the Psalmist, "I am for peace: but when I 
speak, they are for war." (50) 

It was by virtue of this impossible condition arising within 
the old union that Southern States, cotton and border, one 
by one, found it necessary to withdraw from that union — 
which was efifected so far as possible, in every instance, peace- 
ably. They had not only the historical, constitutional right to 
do this, as every real student of constitutional history. South and 
North, now admit ; they had, further, let us here repeat, the 
general assertion of the Declaration of Independence, governing 
all like cases, to support them. As pointed out by President 
Davis, in the above quotation from his inaugural, a prime ob- 
ject in establishing the constitution of the United States and the 
federative government thereunder, was to "insure domestic tran- 
quility." The existing form of government under this consti- 
tution having "become destructive of this end," so far as 
concerned the Southern States, the peoples of these States now 
moved to peaceably alter the form of government. 

And, seldom remembered though it be now, there were at 
that time many in the North who believed that these Southern 
peoples had the inalienable right thus peaceably to withdraw. 
For instance, the New York Tribune itself, organ though it was 
of the aggressive anti-Southern party of that time, declared in 
November and December, i860, after Lincoln's election, as fol- 
lows: (51) 



30 

"We hold with Jefiferson to the inalienable right of com- 
munities to alter or abolish forms of government that have be- 
come oppressive or injurious, and if the Cotton States shall 
become satisfied that they can do better out of the union than in 
it, we insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede 
may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless, and we do 
not see how one party can have a right to do what another party 
has the right to prevent. Whenever a considerable section of 
our union shall deliberately decide to go out, we shall resist all 
coercive measures designed to keep it in. We hope never to live 
in a republic zvhereof one section is pinned to the residue by 
bayonets. ... If ever seven or eight States send agents to 
Washington to say, 'We want to go out of the union,' we shall 
feel constrained by our devotion to human liberty to say, 'Let 
them go !' And we do not see how we could take the other 
side, without coming in direct conflict with those rights of man 
which we hold paramount to all political arrangements, however 
convenient and advantageous." 

Not such men as revohttions generally bring to the front, 
said Stephens, of the Confederate leaders. True. For be it re- 
membered that these men represented, ofificially 
Sovereignty represented, long existent and independent re- 

and Treason publics, already fully organized. The formation 
of a league or confederacy betrween these repub- 
lics was but an incident, an arrangement of convenience, as 
pointed out by Mr. Davis in his inaugural address. How, then, 
could States, republics, independent nations, be said to revolt or 
rebel? A people or a faction rebels against a superior; not 
against an equal or an inferior. Therefore, a creator State of 
inherently sovereign powers could not possibly rebel against 
either the creature central government of strictly limited and 
delegated powers, or against co-equal, confederate States. This 
being so. and Southern individuals acting onlv as citizens of 
their respective States, there could be no treason in their con- 
duct. 

Why was Jefiferson Davis, although long held a prisoner 
after the war, never brought to trial on the charge of high trea- 



31 

soil for which he was indicted? It is said (though I am not at 
this time prepared to vouch for the accuracy of the report) that 
a solemn warning was sounded forth from the Supreme Court 
of the United States to the effect that to push such a charge 
against our fallen leader would be to fool with a combination 
boomerang and back-action buzz-saw. Be that as it may, we 
know that Mr. Davis, after long imprisonment, was released on 
bail (Horace Greeley himself being a bondsman), and the in- 
dictment was never tried. 



Yes, the course of the Southern peoples was the only course 
consistent with peace and honor. Alas! they were ahead of their 

times ; and, like all those who, in any age or 
Ahead of the clime, dare to be ahead of their day and genera- 
Times tion. they have been made to suffer for their 

temerity. As Charles IMackay, the poet says: 

"That man is thought a knave or fool, 
Or bigot plotting crime. 
Who, for the advancement of his race. 
Is iviser than his time." 

Civilization takes but one step forward at a time ; then 
pauses and rests before the next step. The Southern people of 
the period of 1789-1861, in the very vanguard of this slowly ad- 
vancing civilization, acted on the principle that the same rule 
should govern in the intercourse between nations and people as 
between individuals : and that rule the golden rule. But they 
were wiser than their time. Let me explain. 

Some three centuries before this the civilized. Christian (?) 
nations of Europe saw nothing wrong in kidnapping the defense- 
less heathens of Afric sands and selling them into bondage far 
from their native haunts. They justified such practice on the 
grounds alike of expediency and morals. It would bring the 
heathen under the benign influences of Christianity, and at the 
same time cause wealth to flow into the ready pockets of their 



32 

benignant captors. So the over-sea slave trade went merrily on 
for the space of several hundreds of years. Then laggard civili- 
zation took a step forward, and said that this was all wrong. 
The African trade, or the theft and forcible importation of Ne- 
groes was abolished, and the Southern States took a hand with 
the rest in abolishing it. Meantime, civilization was preparing 
to take another step forward — to supplement the cessation of 
slave importation with the abolition of slavery itself. Owing to 
local causes some commimities were more forward in this 
movement than were others. The situation in the Southern 
States was thus sensed by Jefferson: (52) "The cession of that 
kind of property [slaves], for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle 
which would not cost me a second thought if in that way a 
general emancipation and expatriation could be effected ; and 
gradually with due sacrifice I think it might be, but as it is we 
have the wolf by the ears and we can neither hold him nor 
safely let him go. Justice is in the one scale and self-preserva- 
tion in the other." Too, it should be added, slavery remained 
profitable in the South longer than in some other communities, 
and Southerners were but human. But the reform was moving 
forward everywhere, and was bound to triumph in the end. It 
ought to have been allozucd to trimnph peaceably. Out of the 
differences in local conditions, in this and in other matters, arose 
the fierce controversies between the Southern and the Northern 
States of the American union. 

When the contention had waxed so hot that peaceful union 
was no longer possible, then the Southern States proposed a 
peaceable separation. The North said, No ; we will force you 
back. The South said. No ; that is all wrong. The Declaration 
of Independence, the letter and the spirit of the constitution, 
advancing civilization itself, all proclaim in trumpet tones that 
it is just as wrong for one nation. State or group of States 
to conquer another Z'i et armis and to force upon it a govern- 
ment it does not desire, as it is for one man to steal another 
man and sell him into bondage, or for a nation now (as was 
formerly done) to deny to its citizens the right of voluntary ex- 
patriation. 



33 

So spoke the South, wiser than her time. The North, not 
so wise, essayed to enslave whole States and peoples. For this 
is what a forcible union of one-time sovereign States means. 

It is not within the scope of this address to follow the course 
of that memorable struggle. From the day of Thermopylse 
down, to battle for home and native land against the invader and 
the despoiler has ever called forth the utmost valor and exertion 
of patriots. The Southern soldiery came of an adventurous, 
frontier stock. Southrons generally could ride and shoot ; and 
in this war they fought to repel the invader. The result was the 
Confederate warrior, since that time the synonym for all that is 
best and bravest in war. The fame of the Confederate soldier 
is deathless; his glory as eternal as the stars. Starvation, not 
numbers, overwhelmed him after four years of heroic endurance 
and brilliant feats of arms. The Crucial Banner of the South 
sank without a stain upon it, save only the lifeblood of thousands 
of its martyr defenders. 

In this course of invasion and conquest, in which she was 
finally successful, did the North, let me ask, really "save the 
union," as she professed to do? NO, she did 
••The Union" not — from the very nature of the thing, she 
Unsavable could not. The union of the fathers, of the 

constitution of 1787-89, was a union of choice, 
of peace. That original union was and is forever gone, as be- 
tween the South and the North. It was ipso facto destroyed by 
the withdrawal from it of the Southern States. And, like 
Humpty Dumpty when he fell from the wall, or like the late Mr. 
Morgan's scrambled eggs, all the king's horses and all the king's 
men could never (forcibly) put it together again. A union, in- 
deed, a new, diverse, blood red union of force was created and 
pinned together by bayonets ; the union was not, and could not, 
be saved, though it might be restored by the free consent, once 
more, of all the parties to the original union. 

And further, the success of the Southern Confederacy would 
not have meant the destruction of the American union. By the 
victory of the revolted colonies in 1776-83, the immemorial union 
of English-speaking peoples was severed ; but only as to these 



.a4 

colonies; the rest of the English-speaking union, known as the 
British Empire, continues to live, and to live truly stronger and 
better from the lesson that was well learned when one part of 
that union was lost through the blunders of sectional aggression. 

Not for one moment do I question the honesty and patriot- 
ism of the brave soldiers in blue who, I cheerfully admit, sin- 
cerely believed that they were fighting for the union of the 
fathers — although many of them allowed themselves to be swept 
along into this belief. But I do say this, that they, as well as 
we, were victims of their own Juggernaut; that their plea for 
a forcible American union was of the same essence with the plea, 
in 1776, for a forcible British union; it was the plea of Old 
World and world-old imperialism, and a plea which will justify 
every war of invasion and conquest that has ever stained his- 
tory's pages. 

But the objection is sometimes made that the South's suc- 
cess would have meant the Latin-Americanization of the South- 
ern States ; that, the principle of peaceable seces- 

What Might , uv u\a 11 ■ u^ ^u 

. ^ t. ,^. sion, once established, all union between the 
(and should) ' ' 

Have Been different States would have been no more than 

a rope of sand, and we would speedily have de- 
generated into a parcel of petty, mutually jealous republics — 
perhaps dictatorships. The history of our race refutes the sug- 
gestion. 

For some two thousand years the Anglo-Saxon and the 
Celt have wrought out, link by link, on the anvil of hard 
erperience and dogged experimentation, the everlasting prin- 
ciples of self-government. The success of the Confederate 
States of America would have turned out another and a stronger 
link, would have marked another glorious step forward in the 
laborious progress of Liberty and Self-government. Ours is a 
patient race, no less than a progressing one, and the successful 
termination of our second War for Independence could never 
have changed that bent of mind and habit of action that stand 
behind the following assertion in the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence : 

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long es- 



35 

tablished should not be changed for light and transient causes ; 
and, accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are 
more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right 
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accus- 
tomed." 

After the triumph of our first War of Secession more than 
three-quarters of a century passed, during which this right of 
secession, as now reinforced by constitutional provisions, was 
often asserted, before it was actually resorted to. There is no 
reason to think that a second successful application of this dras- 
tic remedy, and under a like strong provocation, would have cut 
us adrift from our previous caution and long-suffering. 

Again, it is argued that there would have been constant 
causes for friction and even bloodshed arising between the Con- 
federate States of America and their neighbors to the north, the 
United States of America. Well, would that sort of bloodshed 
have been any bloodier than the four years of it that was suf- 
fered in imposing the union's yoke upon the Southern States? 
But, after all, are we so sure that those two powers, once they 
had started together in the pathway of peace, would have been 
unable to continue side by side in amity? Despite strong pro- 
vocation at times we manage, nearly all of the time, to preserve 
the peace even with storm-rocked Mexico. And we are about 
to celebrate a century of peace with those ancient enemies of 
ours, now our British and Canadian friends, although during the 
whole of that period they have formed our entire northern land 
boundary, and although "another Mississippi" (the Great Lakes 
and the St. Lawrence) flows from our territory through theirs 
to the sea. 

Another objection, or theory: That, after all, it is better 
for the South that the War should have ended as it did. No, a 
thousand times no : first and foremost, because evil should never 
be done that good may come of it and because Appomattox put 
back a half-century or more the hand of progress on the dial 
plate of civilization ; second and secondarily, because the history 
of the fifty years succeeding the War is a record of legislation 
hostile to the material interests of the Southern portion of what 
is called a reunited country. Under the first of these two heads 



36 

we may add, that not only was progress thus retarded, but that 
a new and dangerous element has been introduced into the body 
politic — the spirit of evasion of the fundamental law. If you 
doubt it, see how certain provisions of the fourteenth amend- 
ment to the federal constitution have become practically a dead 
letter, and by well-nigh universal consent. This fourteenth 
amendment is one of the "War amendments," as they are called. 

But Fate, we hear it said, had decreed the downfall of the 
Southern Confederacy. The very stars in their courses, we are 
told, fought against the South, even as they 
Fate and the fought against Sisera of yore. That assertion I 
Confederacy shall not here stop to dispute, beyond remark- 
ing that the final outcome of the War was ex- 
tremely doubtful until within less than eight months of Gen. 
Lees surrender — probably so, that is, until Atlanta fell a few 
weeks before the date of the Presidential election of 1864 in the 
United States. But — what is meant by "the stars in their 
courses" ? 

Come with me, on a clear, moonless night, and scan that 
part of the heavens that encircles the Pole star and in which the 
entire course of a given star is above the horizon. Watch with 
me some bright stellar sun which, having left the zenith, grad- 
ually descends the western sky, appears to stand still awhile at 
the extreme westernmost point, then swings slowly but surely 
eastward again on the return sweep around the pole, yet still 
descending until it reaches the nadir, whence it gradually as- 
cends again as it swings ever on toward the east. Other stars, 
farther south, not thus visible throughout their entire orbits, ap- 
pear to the eye of the observer to set, and are blotted out of sight 
a long while before they rise again. 

Yes, the stars indeed march resistlessly on in their courses ; 
but those courses are in circles. 

There are signs in the political heavens that Dixie's guiding 
star, her glorious constellation the Southern Cross of battle, 
which set blood red at Appomattox, is now ap- 
The Confed- pearing in the east, a pure, glistening white, the 
g^gj. day-star of hope and happiness for the South- 

land and for the world. 



37 

To explain, and to drop the figure. Certain great world 
tendencies, in the forward march of civilized mankind, are 
found in diverse yet complementary pairs ; first one, then the 
other, predominating in alternate, pulsating cycles. Broadly 
speaking, the nineteenth century was an era of the predomi- 
nance of the centripetal power in government, the ascendancy 
of the central political authority. The triumph of militant 
French democracy in the revolution of 1789 quickly merged into 
the imperial despotism of Napoleon, the erstwhile republican 
conqueror ; this was succeeded by the return of the Bourbons to 
power. Just at this time our Latin neighbors to the south, not 
yet schooled for true liberty, broke away from enervated Spain; 
but we must remember that it was only the joining of hands of 
the United States and Britain, and the resultant raising of that 
shield of the Western World, the Monroe Doctrine, that checked 
the reactionist "Holy Alliance" of continental Europe in its pro- 
ject of forcible recovery of these revolted Spanish colonies — so, 
at least, it is supposed. The Second French Republic, born out 
of due time in the abortive convulsions of 1848, was speedily 
swallowed up by the Second Empire, which eventually gave place 
to the Third (and semi-monarchical) Republic. The great revo- 
lutionary upheavals of 1848 throughout Europe were generally 
suppressed. Within the next few years Kossuth and the cause of 
Hungarian independence went down before the imperial 
Hapsburgs ; Poland in vain sought to regain her lost national- 
ity; the former independent or autonomous principalities and 
electorates of Germany became welded into the modern German 
Empire with the ruthless Bismarck at the helm. 

In the face of this ominous reaction in the Old World, the 
glorious ensign of confederated Southern independence was 
raised aloft in our own stormy sky. The dragon teeth of over- 
weening, un-American imperialism sown by Webster thirty 
years before, bore their rich harvest of armed cohorts from the 
North, and the Southern Confederacy, latest and most promising 
of Freedom's growing family of happy nations, was swept from 
the face of the earth. And. significantly enough, in the midst of 
our struggle for independence, it was the fleet of autocratic 



38 

Russia, inveterate foe to liberty, that wintered in New York 
harbor to lend moral support to the cause of Northern aggres- 
sion and conquest, as against the threatened aid of more en- 
lightened England to the cause of the South (53) — England, 
always the well-wisher of a weaker people fighting for freedom, 
except only when she herself happens to be the oppressor — Eng- 
land, who at a later time crushed down the liberty-loving Boers 
in a war in many particulars most strikingly like the war on the 
Confederacy. 

But now, thank God, the trend amongst progressive and, at 
heart, liberty-loving peoples is, once more, away from imperialism 
and forcible union. For, under imperialism and forcible union, 
there is no adequate protection for a sectional minority; remem- 
ber that. Imperialism and forcible union are, in their workings, 
robberty of the right of local self-government which is the alpha 
and omega of political liberty. From about, the close of the 
nineteenth century on, what do we see? The waning of the 
centripetal force in government, the waxing of the centrifugal. 
In the world-old strife between Liberty and Power, Liberty be- 
gins again to prevail, in the renewed recognition of the saving 
principle of Home Rule and the rights of the minority. 

We ourselves in 1898 helped Cuba in her stand for free- 
dom. Five years later we aided and abetted Panama in her se- 
cession from the United States— of Colombia. We thereby of- 
ficially and governmentally recognized (whether with due regard 
to our duty toward Colombia, we need not here inquire), sol- 
emnly recognized, that the interests and desires of the whole are 
not always paramount to the rights of a part ; yea, even though 
the territorial integrity of the United States — ^of Colombia was 
thereby sacrificed. Shortly thereafter we see Norway resolutely 
simder the bonds of union with her homogeneous sister, Sweden. 
And the wayward, weaker sister (with about the same propor- 
tion of area and population of the whole Scandinavian union as 
the South had of the whole American union) is in this instance 
allowed to go in peace, just as certain in the North were fair 
enough and brave enough to advocate, but vainly, be done with 
us in 1861. And later still we see something like secession from 
secession, in the case of Ulster and Ireland. 



39 

Even in the matter of amending the federal constitution, be- 
hold Senator LaFollette's "gateway amendment," by which a 
minority is empowered to propose amendments. A similar pro- 
vision was made fifty years before in the constitution of the 
Confederate States of America; (54) a most decided improve- 
ment, in favor of the rights of the minority, over the cumber- 
some and reactionary provision of the federal constitution re- 
quiring a two-thirds majority even to propose amendment for 
consideration by the amending power. 

These, I submit, are no fanciful comparisons, no imaginary 
parallels. No matter what may be all the details, all the motives, 
in each case, on the whole we may confidently affirm that 
through it all runs a larger sense than before of the rights of the 
weaker; of the beauties and blessings of peace; of the folly, and 
worse, of war. The Hague tribunal and the Bryan peace treat- 
ies are further witnesses to this auspicious change. To come 
nearer home : an acquaintance of mine, a gentleman from Cali- 
fornia, remarked casually, in the course of a conversation with 
me, that among the people of the Pacific coast there was quite 
a good deal of talk to the effect that they have their own inter- 
ests and are quite capable of maintaining a separate political 
existence ; although, he added, there is among them, too, a strong 
attachment to the union. Just how these two things are recon- 
ciled, or to be reconciled he did not say. And (another coinci- 
dence) much of the dififerences, if such we may style them, be- 
tween the Pacific States and the East, like the former contro- 
versies between South and North, arise from a race question 
growing out of the presence in their midst of an alien, dark- 
skinned race.. 

So we see the tardily turning tide of national and inter- 
national ideals and tendencies at last following the once over- 
whelmed, never really lost, current of Confed- 
Our Past Ex- ^^^^_q principles. And the South, the ever faith- 
Future G "d ^"^ South, of later times we find revering her 
leaders of the earlier and darker periods, for 
"there is life in the old land yet." 



40 

We find the South, near half a century after Appomattox, 
risen phcenix like from the ashes of War and Reconstruction and 
pushing forward in all fields of endeavor. Agriculture, com- 
merce, manufactures, education, literature, good roads, adjust- 
ment of her race problem without undue outside interference 
(hence, as more of a sociological, less of a partisan, sectional 
question); — in all these the peoples of the Southern States were 
making splendid progress and were rapidly recovering the lost 
ground in political leadership. But, in the midst of all this it 
was that; biy separate but similar acts, three Southern States, for 
themselves and for the South at large, linked the present with 
the past for the future in a way most significant. 

In the first decade of the twentieth century the South placed 
among the officially designated immortals of the several United 
States in Statuary Hall at the Capitol building in Washington 
city the effigies of John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, and Rob- 
ert E'. Lee 'of Virginia, and on the sterling plate service of the 
battleship Mississippi the likeness of Jefferson Davis of Missis- 
sippi and Kentucky. There they remained, fitly typifying the 
Soiith's own contribution to the cause of true Liberty as against 
oveir-weening Power, her chosen champions of the two phases of 
constitutional home rule through State sovereignty, viz : Nulli- 
fication or State veto subject to federal referendum, and Se- 
cession or resumption of full powers by the State; and only when 
these are scorned by her oppressors and all constitutional re- 
dress denied, then the stainless sword of defensive war. (f) 

Calhoun, Davis, Lee — men with private lives as spotless as 
their political principles are true, exemplars of the Southland's 
past, guides for her future. 

:;;,,Yes, our constellation was only obscured, it did not really 
set at Appomattox ; the Southern Cross of Minority Rights, 
Home Rijle. and Arbitration once more flames in the morning 
sky; and it shall shine more and more vmto the perfect day, if 
the .Southr— America — the w^orld, is to have true progress zvith 
peace. .... 



41 



ADDENDUM. 

A few months after the original preparation and delivery of 
the above address, the Confederate monument at Arlington was 
unveiled, June 4, 1914. (Why was this not done one day earlier, 
President Davis' birthday?) This monument — a memorial both 
to the heroic Confederate dead and to the equally heroic women 
of the South who raised it — is a masterpiece of the great sculp- 
tor, Ezekiel, himself one of our boy heroes of the cadet corps at 
New Market. The female figure surmounting the pedestal and 
personifying the Southland holds in one hand the laurel wreath 
for her marytr dead — some of whom, below her, are pictured as 
when in life and rallying to her defense. In the other hand she 
holds a pruning hook, and beside her stands a plow ready for 
the furrow ; the whole fitly typifying the genius of the Confed- 
eracy — Peace, so far as possible, (55) and Progress. 

President Wilson accepted the monument on behalf of the 
federal government. Secretary Bryan was an honored guest on 
the platform — two apostles of amity and justice among the na- 
tions of the earth. By this monument the Confederate States of 
America speak their message of peace to these our rulers, and 
through them to the world. 

By their fruits ye shall know them: (56) the Southern Con- 
federacy, like murdered Abel of old, through its "more excel- 
lent sacrifice . . . being dead yet speaketh." (57) 

LLOYD T. EVERETT, 

Ballston, Va. 



NOTES. 

(a) We here briefly epitomize the substance of the respective argu- 
ments of Hayne and Webster on this point. For their own language in 
extenso see the contemporaneous publication, Gales & Seaton's Register 
of Debates in Congress. 

(b) See the author's article, Federal Initiative and Referendum, 
South Atlantic Quarterly for October, 1912. 

(c) See the article, "The War Day by Day," the Washington Herald, 



42 

March 13, 1914, where we are told that the appointment of the German, 
Gen. Franz Sigel, early in 1864, to command in western Virginia and the 
Shenandoah Valley had been made by Lincoln "in pursuance of his ear- 
nest wish to recognize in every way possible the great aid Gen. Sigel's 
countrymen were giving the government in the prosecution of the war. 
Lincoln, in homely phrase, had said that he ought to 'take care of the 
Germans.' Gen. Sigel's appointment was directly due to this purpose of 
the President's. An election was approaching and the German vote was 
important." 

(d) Here and elsewhere, in quotations found in this article, the 
emphasis is our own. 

(e) See this more fully discussed in A. H. Stephens' History of 
the United States, pp. 590 e't seq. 

(f) "Trusting in Almighty God, an approving conscience and the 
aid of my fellow-citizens, I devote myself to the service of my native 
State, in whose behalf alone will I ever again draw my sword." — Gen. 
Robert E. Lee to the Convention of Virginia, April, 1861, in accepting 
the command of the military forces of the State to defend her against 
the impending invasion : Rev. J. Wm. Jones' Life and Letters of Robert 
Edward Lee (1906), 135. 



(i) The purported letter of Gen. Lee containing the expression is 
found in Dr. J. Wm. Jones' Personal Reminiscences, Anecdotes and Let- 
ters of Gen. Robt. E. Lee, 1875, p. 133. Capt. James Power Smith, of 
the Southern Historical Society, advises me that Professor Graves, of the 
University of Virginia, has examined the question in an Address before 
the Bar Association of Virginia, and reached the conclusion that the 
letter was not written by General Lee ; also, that the Publishing Com- 
mittee of the Society concurs in this conclusion. — L. T. E. 

(2) Gen. Jackson's farewell address to the "Stonewall Brigade," 
Oct. 4, 1861 : John Esten Cooke's "Stonewall Jackson : A Military Biog- 
raphy," 1876, p. 856. 

(3) The Bible, Isaiah ii, 4. 

(4) "It is related that the flag which was raised at Cambridge, Jan- 
uary 2, 1776, by Washington, was composed of thirteen red and white 
stripes, with the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew emblazoned on 
the blue canton in place of the stars." — Brown & Strauss' Dictionary of 
American Politics, article "Flag of the United States." 

(5) A. H. Stephens' Hist. U. S., 225. 

(6) Revised Statutes of the United States, 1878, copy of the Declara- 
tion of Independence, certified by Ferdinand Jefferson, official custodian, 
or "Keeper of the Rolls at the Department of State." 

(7) See, for instance, action of the Convention of North Carolina 
which refused to accede to the federal constitution of 1787, adopting by 
a large majority a resolution recommending to the Legislature to pass 
similar impost laws to those to be passed by the Congress under the con- 
stitution "and appropriate the money arising therefrom to the use _ of 
Congress" ; i. e., thus refusing to recognize the secession of the ratifying 
States from the old Confederation. Vol. 4 Elliot's Debates, p. 251. 

(8) See I Elliot's Debates, 327, 327-9, 334-5; A. H. Stephens' Hist. 

u. s., 339-40, 347-50, 358-61. 



43 

(9) 3 Elliot, 8/. (lo) 5 ib., 127-8, 140. 

(11) Vol. 3 McMasters Hist. People of the U. S., 42; 2 Hy. Adams' 
Hist. U. S., 160 et seq. ; Powell's Nullification and Secession in the 
U. S., chap. 3. (12) 3 McMaster, chap. 19; 4 Hy. Adams, 407, 431. 

(13) "Congressional Speeches of Josiah Quincy," edited by his son, 
Edmund Quincy (1874), 196. 

(14) See a host of authorities, including A. H. Stephens' Hist. 
U. S., 419- 

(15) Jefferson to Holmes, April 22, 1820, "The Writings of Thos. 
Jefiferson" (1829), vol. 4, pp. 323-4; also, in "Jefferson's Complete 
Works," vol. 7, 159, as cited in Stephens' Hist. U. S.. 431. 

(16) Quoted from memory; author or origin not now recalled. 

(17) Jenkins' Calhoun, 248-9. 

(18) See the writer's monograph, "A Titans' War," chap. 34. 

(19) Accede, some 58 times in Elliot's Debates; compact or con- 
tract, over 30 times, ibid. ; confederacy, confederated republic, federal 
(under the new constitution, or in the federal convention of 1787), some 
50 times, ib. ; constitution (as applied to the Articles of Confederation, 
or as distinguished therefrom), about 27 times, ib. ; nation, national, ap- 
plied to both old Confederation and new constitution, in all over 60 
times, ib. The above summary is rather ultra conservative in its approx- 
imation of the numbers of times these several terms are found in Elli- 
ot's Debates. 

(20) Elliot, vol. 2, 165. (21) Ibid., vol. 4, 183. (22) lb., vol. 327. 

(23) Supra, note 8. 

(24) 5 Elliot, 483. 

(25) "A Titans' War," chap. 15. 

(26) Stephens' U. S., 937-39- 

(27) Vol. 8, "Writings of Thos. Jefferson" (1897), 22-3. 

(28) Jenkins' Calhoun, 300. 

(29) Brown & Strauss' Dictionary of American Politics, 153, arti- 
cle, "Expounder of the Constitution." 

(30) H. C. Lodge's Life of Daniel Webster, 171. (31) Ibid., 225-6. 

(32) Von Hoist on the Constitution of the United States, vol. I. 
p. 496. 

(33) See, inter al., "The Speeches of Daniel Webster" (Tefft), 438. 

(34) Annals of Congress, 1813-14, vol. i, 949-50. 

(35) "A Titans' War," chap. 15; Vol. 6, Gale & Seaton's Register of 
Debates in Congress, part i, abt. p. 92. 

(36) Theo. D. Jervey's Robert Y. Hayne and His Times, 260. 

(37) Register of Debates in Congress, vol. 9. 1612 et seq. 

(38) 4 Elliot, 285. 

(39) Brown & Strauss" Dictionary of American Politics, p. 344. 
article, "Republican Party." 

(40) As quoted in Stephens' Hist. U. S., 432. (41) Ibid., 602; Mes- 
sages & Papers of the Confederacy, vol. i, p. 55- 

(42) Stephens' Hist. U. S., 598. 



44 

(43) Official Journal Louisiana Convention of 1861, No. 3 of the 
ordinances and resolutions passed. 

' (44) Vol. I, Messages & Papers of the Confederacy, 32-4- 

(45) Stephens' Hist. U. S., 604. (46) Ibid., 607-9 and Appendix N; 
also. Messages & Papers of the Confederacy, vol. i, 63 et seq. and 82 
et seq. (Messages of President Davis to Congress, April 29, ibOi, and 
May 8, 1861.) 

(47) Stephens' Hist. U. S., 604. (48) Ibid., 589; E. A. Pollards 
"The Lost Cause," 94. 

(49) "The Lost Cause," 93. 

(so) The Bible, Psalm cxx, 7. 

(51) As quoted in "The Lost Cause," 84-5. 

(52) "The Writings of Thomas Jeflferson" (18-29), vol. 4, 324- 

(53) See, inter alia, "A Russian Alliance," editorial in Harper's 

(54) Permanent Constitution of the Confederate States of America, 

(55) The Bible, Romans xii, 18. 

(56) Ibid., Matthew vii, 20. 

(57) Ibid., Hebrews xi, 4. 



ERRATA 

Page 3, inset: "English" should be English. 

Page 9, 4th line up: "wat" should be -was. 

Page 12, 14th line up: Insert a comma after "league." 

Page 17, 15th line down: "remains" should be remain. 

Page 27, 13th line down; "commence" should be commerce. 

Page 29, 17th line up: "admit" should be admits. 

Page 31, 10th line up: "people" should be peoples. 

Page 34, 19th line: delete the comma after "secession." 

Page 38, 15th line down: "robberty" should be ro66er?/. 

Page 39, Inset: "Exemplers" should be Exemplars. 

Page 43, Reference note 22: Insert 1 after "vol." 

Page 44, Reference note 52: "18-29" should be 1829. 

Page 44, Reference note 53: Add Weekly, Oct. 17, 1863. 

Page 44, Reference note 54: Add Article v. 



LIBRPRY OF CONGRESS 



013 764 603 1 ^ 




Confederate Pamphlets! 



Was It Anti-Slavery? 

On the Causes of the War of 1861 
S. C V. Prize Essay, 1916 

25 Cents per copy. 2 Copies, 40 Cents 



Living Confederate Principles 

An Address by Lloyd T. Everett 

to the Confederate Veterans of 

Washington, D. C. 

50 Cents per Copy. 2 Copies, 75 Cents 



Stamps or Money Order 

Yexid Publishing Company 

Box 250 
BALLSTON, VIRGINIA 







j^—(^^ 



(_/ 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 764 603 1 



l^<»i%»<%^t tCA^ 



